Judicial review of arbitral awards is limited; courts should not interfere unless there is clear evidence of perversity or violation of public policy.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard both sides.

2. For a contract work of construction of OTM (Other than Married) Accommodation for Inf. Bn. Kulian (Miran Saheb), Jammu, the respondent M/s Bharat Construction, as being a successful bidder, stood allotted the contract.

3. The value for which said contract came to be so allotted to the respondent was Rs.17,36,75,306.90. An agreement in writing bearing CA No. CEPZ–29/2007–2008 in terms of a letter dated 31/07/2007 to said effect with the respondent came to be executed on behalf of the Union of India through Chief Engineer, Pathankot Zone.

4. A contract related dispute between the two parties was amenable to an arbitration in terms of arbitration clause in the General Conditions of Contract IAFW-2249 being made part of said contract agreement so executed with the respondent.

5. The contract work though commenced from its scheduled date 16/08/2007 but could not be completed within or on its due date of completion on 15/08/2010 which, thus, came to be extended for completion to 21/09/2012 when the contract work came to be so completed by the respondent as certified by the Department with regard to the completion.

6. The conduct of the contract work from its date of commencement to its date of completion came to brew some disputes purportedly related to the execution of the contract falling within the scope of arbitration which led to a reference before an originally appointed arbitrator Brig. Gurdev Singh (Retd.) before whom arbitration proceedings had commenced in the year 2016 in the requisite manner but only to the extent of exchange of pleadings from both sides.

7. However, before the proceeding could advance further towards adjudication, the arbitrator Brig. Gurdial Singh came to relieve himself from the arbitration proceedings as a result whereof of Engineer-in-Chief, IHK of Ministry of Defence Army, New Delhi vide its letter No. 13600/WC/827/38/E8 dated 27/06/2017 by reference to clause 7 of IAFW – 2249 ( General Conditions of Contract) came to appoint Mr. R.P.Singhal CE(QS&C) Jt. DG(Contracts) as an arbitrator replacing Brig. Gurdial Singh so as to carry forward the arbitration to its logical adjudication .

8. As the dispute begging an arbitration had arisen on account of claims made by the respondent but denied and disputed by the employer side that is of the Chief Engineer Pathankot Zone, so it was the respondent which came forward with its statement of claims SOC before the arbitrator and responded by statement of defence SOD from the end of the appellants. In addition, there was also a statement of claim SOC from the appellants’ end and corresponding statement of defence SOD from the respondent's end to complete the pleadings before the arbitrator and duly supported and supplemented by submission of documents from both sides.

9. The arbitral tribunal was called upon to adjudicate the claims of the respondent against the appellants bearing aggregate claim of Rs. 8,35,64,706/-, excluding interest related claim-heads, comprised as under: -

Claim 1: An amount of Rs.47,81,296 towards extra expenditure incurred towards extra work of rooms and toilet block got constructed in item No. 29 of Schedule “A” Part 1 construction of guard rest room with elevated Sentry post.

Claim No.2: An amount of Rs.3,56,856 towards extra expenditure incurred on account of construction of two separate blocks instead of one block catered under CA provision in respect of item No. 17 of Schedule “A” Part-1 i.e., block of garage for 10 cars and 30 motorcycles.

Claim 3: An amount of Rs.1,02,57,123 towards extra expenditure incurred on account of provision of plinth beams to building listed in Schedule 'A' \Part 1.

Claim No. 4. An amount of Rs.52,206.00 towards extra expenditure incurred towards provision of reinforcement and respect of Pedestal to FFI.

Claim No. 5: An amount of Rs.1,53,712.00 towards expenditure incurred on account of provision of RCC parapet in SM Barrack at GF& FF in veranda viz items 14 and 15 of schedule A.

Claim